Emergency Board Meeting - Draft Minutes

[Richard Bates]

Whatever the general perception of Danialov (arising i think mostly from his association with the Kramnik/Topalov match), from a position of limited knowledge I get the impression that the ECU under Danialov has been quite a serious thorne in Kirsan/FIDE's side over the last few years. Considering the assumptions that many make about Kasparov's chances in the FIDE election (not least as a result of the serious efforts Russia will make to prevent his election for reasons of external politics), there is a strong argument that the ECU election is therefore far more important to the ECF (given it's anti Kirsan stance) than the FIDE one.

So we support the dubious and and untrustworthy candidate against the dubious and and untrustworthy candidate?

Suffice it to say that you have completely missed the point being made, but that's hardly a novelty event.

(BTW most people i assume would think that setting a threshold of "dubious and untrustworthy" as a barrier to voting is a bit low where any kind of politics is involved...)

[Roger de Coverly]

It's compulsory to vote, is it?

It's by no means compulsory to vote in FIDE or ECU elections, as I understand it, but specific objection to both candidates isn't recorded in the voting figures. It might be asked whether the Board considered the option of non-participation.

The whole "compromise" is restricted by limits to the power of the Board. Certainly they can "persuade" one of their members to resign, but given that the FIDE Delegate is directly elected by the voting members, they cannot partly replace him, even if that's the deal reached. Hence the motion to be put to the Finance Council meeting and the potential embarrassment if the meeting should choose to reject it.

At last year's election, there was a debate about what the non-Executive Directors were supposed to do. Keeping non voting or even voting members informed is evidently not part of the job description.

[Roger de Coverly]

Not to mention that i assume the ECU should be an organisation in which we should realistically aspire and want to have influence in, given that its membership is dominated by major chessplaying nations. The Board on the other hand seems to have taken the view that the election is of little consequence.

It has presumably become more important in recent years. Go back in the archives and you find the ECF President was also ECU Vice President. Not that anyone remembers this or that it gave the ECF and the BCF before it any special influence.

http://monroi.com/chess-blog/monroi-che ... l?start=10

The ECU is a potential threat to FIDE management. If FIDE collapsed or did something really bad and stupid, a combination of the ECU if united, plus the USA, India and China and a few others would represent something like a high nineties percentage of the world's active chess players, so whilst a FIDE of the "smaller" countries could no doubt try to continue, they wouldn't be where chess was played.

[Mick Norris]

Whatever the general perception of Danialov (arising i think mostly from his association with the Kramnik/Topalov match), from a position of limited knowledge I get the impression that the ECU under Danialov has been quite a serious thorne in Kirsan/FIDE's side over the last few years. Considering the assumptions that many make about Kasparov's chances in the FIDE election (not least as a result of the serious efforts Russia will make to prevent his election for reasons of external politics), there is a strong argument that the ECU election is therefore far more important to the ECF (given it's anti Kirsan stance) than the FIDE one. Not to mention that i assume the ECU should be an organisation in which we should realistically aspire and want to have influence in, given that its membership is dominated by major chessplaying nations.

Interesting points, voting for Danailov would be wrong to many of us, and it isn't just Toiletgate, there are many other issues with him - however, it may be that he is the lesser of the 2 evils in this contest for the reasons you state

I had understood that the ECF Board (and possibly some Council members) were to meet both candidates before deciding which way (if at all?) to cast the ECF vote in the ECU election

[Richard Bates]

Whatever the general perception of Danialov (arising i think mostly from his association with the Kramnik/Topalov match), from a position of limited knowledge I get the impression that the ECU under Danialov has been quite a serious thorne in Kirsan/FIDE's side over the last few years. Considering the assumptions that many make about Kasparov's chances in the FIDE election (not least as a result of the serious efforts Russia will make to prevent his election for reasons of external politics), there is a strong argument that the ECU election is therefore far more important to the ECF (given it's anti Kirsan stance) than the FIDE one. Not to mention that i assume the ECU should be an organisation in which we should realistically aspire and want to have influence in, given that its membership is dominated by major chessplaying nations.

Interesting points, voting for Danailov would be wrong to many of us, and it isn't just Toiletgate, there are many other issues with him - however, it may be that he is the lesser of the 2 evils in this contest for the reasons you state

I had understood that the ECF Board (and possibly some Council members) were to meet both candidates before deciding which way (if at all?) to cast the ECF vote in the ECU election

I should perhaps re-emphasise that the main point of my post wasn't to say that the ECF should vote for/support Danialov (although that might be the best course to take). Rather it was to question what seems to be the ECF Board's attitude that the election of so little consequence that it is prepared to use it as a useful tool to solve their internal issues, even if it may result in supporting an outcome detrimental to its long established policy. Of course there is a difference between seeing an election of little consequence because the body the elections are for is powerless, as opposed to being of little consequence because the body has power but all candidates are equally bad (or good).

[Jonathan Rogers]

Perhaps I am one of the few to regard the recent announcement as quite sensible and not especially unprincipled.

First, AP would, I believe, have resigned immediately after the vote of no-confidence if the Board had, by way of compromise, allowed him to deliver the ECU vote. This was rejected, presumably for the reasons which Richard gave above, and because this would have quite undermined Nigel. But this arrangement is an improvement on that, and I can see why it is acceptable for both sides. The Board has not given AP the ECU vote: Council must now approve that and there must be every chance that it will not. And it has procured the very useful and time saving gain of AP's immediate resignation. AP gains the chance to put his case to Council, with the Board's backing "for what it is worth" and moreover can refer to the Board's support in external politics whatever Council decides. He has at least gained something, and has caused continuing uncertainty to Nigel.

What do the rest of us lose by virtue of this compromise? Not a lot. The internal reasons for AP's departure are reasonably well known; or at least, one imagines that the Directors will now feel able to talk more openly if asked. Council will still get its say on the important external FIDE politics matter. Our main concern is now that the selection of the new President will be transparent and command a reasonable amount of support outside Board and Council as well.

[Roger de Coverly]

Our main concern is now that the selection of the new President will be transparent and command a reasonable amount of support outside Board and Council as well.

There is as yet no stated policy on this. It will be recalled that when CJ decided to stand down, he was not replaced until the election at the AGM, admittedly only a month away at the time.

Assuming they replace the President, I think the Board makes the choice. That doesn't stop them disclosing who they are considering at the Finance meeting and asking for votes of approval or endorsement.

[IM Jack Rudd]

The Board makes the choice, yes - it has the authority to fill vacant Board posts at any time. There are currently two such posts: President and Commercial Director.

[JustinHorton]

It's compulsory to vote, is it?

It's by no means compulsory to vote in FIDE or ECU elections, as I understand it, but specific objection to both candidates isn't recorded in the voting figures.

No, but saying so out loud is a way to get over that difficulty.

[Simon Spivack]

... this was a compromise by the Board (at my expense) to get rid of Andrew Paulson as President immediately. He has now gone - and good riddance too. On the downside, he now has 7 votes in his favour, out of c.300 at the Council meeting

The ECF notice states: "The English Chess Federation Board resolved nem con ..." There were, therefore, no dissenting votes at that meeting. However, did all the directors present actually support this motion, or did some not express a view?

This looks like a deal struck following legal advice. Is there any reason for the ECF Council to go along with all its provisions? Nigel campaigned very publicly and successfully on an anti-Kirsan ticket. It sits very oddly that the Board would nominate a candidate for the deputy-presidency of the ECU who is opposed to Nigel's position.

[JustinHorton]

Is there any reason for the ECF Council to go along with all its provisions?

None at all.

We'd just be asking Council to overturn the actions of the Board in overturningthe actions of Council.

Which is fun.

No way to run an organisation, but fun.

[Rob Thompson]

The board putting this motion before council doesn't imply that they will then support the motion, in much the same way that Phil Ehr proposed the vote of (no) confidence and the abstained.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Do the Board or its members have votes at Council?

[Angus French]

The board putting this motion before council doesn't imply that they will then support the motion, in much the same way that Phil Ehr proposed the vote of (no) confidence and the abstained.

The Board recommends that the ECF Council at its April meeting approves a Motion to give Andrew Paulson standing during the ECU General Assembly election meeting in Tromsø in August by designating him as the official ECF Delegate at that meeting.

[John Philpott]

Christopher Kreuzer wrote

Do the Board or its members have votes at Council?

Each Board member has one vote at Council in his capacity as a Director.